X and Meta. We have study after study after study that these platforms are not only intentionally espousing misinformation and generating outrage/fracture in society, but also that they're...
Prof Stephan Lewandowsky of Bristol University, who is an expert in disinformation, said that social media platforms amplified far-right voices. “Facebook is an outrage machine,” he said. “It’s a serious problem and is easily solved by modifying the algorithms so that they highlight information based on quality rather than outrage.
X and Meta. We have study after study after study that these platforms are not only intentionally espousing misinformation and generating outrage/fracture in society, but also that they're profiting from it. Close them down or fine them for social costs until the go out of business. We have laws against arson and wrecking infrastructure and selling harmful materials to citizens.
If we don't yet have laws for people who burn down society digitally, rending the social fabric and actively selling mind poisons, we can start there.
I don't understand how we have no laws against digital forms of taking foreign interest money to influence local elections and profiting off of rage baiting citizens. "It's not easy", sure, I'll bet it's insanely difficult. But should a government's legitimacy and own survival be worth some effort to maintain?
Even though we have lived digital lifes for decades, I still think we haven't fully accepted that it actually exists and have real consequences. The tech industry is massively under regulated...
Even though we have lived digital lifes for decades, I still think we haven't fully accepted that it actually exists and have real consequences. The tech industry is massively under regulated compared to most things in the physical world. There still seems to be a general notion that it is doesn't have real consequences and we haven't fully developed proper mental model for the digital world yet as a society. If someone breaks into your house or a victim of crime in general, most people would show sympathy and agree that it should be a police matter. However often with digital crimes such as identity theft, scams or online abuse are often disregarded as not that big of a deal, the victim's own fault or that they can just go offline. It is similar to the difference we still have with physical illness and mental illness. Cancer is real and tangible, whereas mental illness is still seen as "just in your head". Both things have improved a lot in recent years but I still think we have a long way to go. The tech industry still get a free pass in many areas. Like we have strict regulations on gambling, but games can employ the same addictive manipulative strategies with no one stopping them.
It’s all because we, as a society, have decided they should not be held accountable for user submitted content. Which I have always loudly proclaimed is the most stupid and irresponsible idea we...
It’s all because we, as a society, have decided they should not be held accountable for user submitted content. Which I have always loudly proclaimed is the most stupid and irresponsible idea we could possibly have. If we can sue a newspaper publisher for printing libel, why do we exempt megacorporations who operate on a scale that newspapers could barely even dream of?
How would such liability be implemented? Would it require pre-screen between submission and publication, a best-effort effort to clear the report queue? For that matter, will there be a...
How would such liability be implemented? Would it require pre-screen between submission and publication, a best-effort effort to clear the report queue?
For that matter, will there be a distinction between server hosting (whether VPS or physical servers) and being a social platform?
Speaking with all of the privilege of someone who doesn’t run one of these services, I don’t actually care much about the specifics. If things get pre-screened that would probably be better. I...
Speaking with all of the privilege of someone who doesn’t run one of these services, I don’t actually care much about the specifics. If things get pre-screened that would probably be better.
I would be OK if private messages were exempted from the requirements, because that is a point where it is clearer that they are acting more of a delivery medium instead of a publication. The important distinction is the availability of the content to be viewed by the public.
I do care about the specifics because they're the subtle details that differentiate between effective, ineffective, and breaking the fundamental business model for hosting user-generated content....
I do care about the specifics because they're the subtle details that differentiate between effective, ineffective, and breaking the fundamental business model for hosting user-generated content.
Even "availability of the content to be viewed by the public" needs a precise definition. How does that apply to a person's Facebook status if the privacy setting is "friends of friends"? What about private subreddits?
Along those lines I think publishing something for your mutuals to see is different than posting something to your followers. The former, I think, should be exempt from screening.
Along those lines I think publishing something for your mutuals to see is different than posting something to your followers. The former, I think, should be exempt from screening.
Preach! We need legal accountability. Sadly that will need to depend on politicians to push and pass, and it's easy to somehow convince them nah, we're job creators and contribute to the economy etc.
Preach!
We need legal accountability. Sadly that will need to depend on politicians to push and pass, and it's easy to somehow convince them nah, we're job creators and contribute to the economy etc.
It's not nefarious or sinister, not the basic functions that make this happen. It's just ordinary human nature. Not at all complicated or intricate. The fact that various factions, and indeed...
It's not nefarious or sinister, not the basic functions that make this happen. It's just ordinary human nature. Not at all complicated or intricate.
The fact that various factions, and indeed various nation-state factions, are weaponizing social media is really a separate discussion. Just as nations guard borders, nations now need to guard their online borders. It's one thing to say "we have a free society with free speech." It's another thing to allow people to manipulate free speech to nefarious real-world ends, and yet another thing entirely for a hostile nation to be allowed to do it. But that's really a separate discussion from "social media."
The basics are simple. People crave agreement. They want agreement. And they absolutely do not want to be disagreed with, certainly not in any way that comes with a judgement or a hostile tone to the disagreement.
If a group of people want lunch, and are trying to figure out what to get, the suggestions that get agreement very rapidly bubble to the top. The outliers that few (or only one) wanted, sink. Sometimes they even draw some form of hostility (e.g., "why would you want (type of food), no way weirdo") as the group disagrees.
There are finite limits to how many people can be packed into an in person group. Even if you fill a stadium, those people have a hard time communicating with each other. A core group (with control of the PA system) can lead the "discussion", seeing which suggestions and proposals get (dis)agreement, but it's still basically the same thing. The group looking for something they (mostly) all agree on, which they'll cheer and applaud, and that'll fix their collective choice.
Online though, there's a much more infinite lack of limits in "the group". You might be a one-in-a-thousand "weirdo", but there are 330+million people in America, and 8.125+ billion people in the world. So even one-in-a-thousand oddball views and opinions can find agreement. Can find their people.
That agreement amplifies. Folks have coined the term "echo chamber" and usually utilize it to refer to the amplification of opinions they disagree with. They don't think of views and decisions they do agree with as "echo chamber", even if they are; but if an unwanted opinion is gaining traction in other groups, they'll trot out that term (among others) to try and disparage it.
Which is what people use disparagement and insults for. Why they do them. They want to crush ideas they disagree with. They want those ideas stomped out, violently. That's why they ridicule and fling hostility.
But online, you can find your people. Unlike those finite in-person group limits, where you could be a minority of one and thus easily shouted down and dismissed, online the others who share your view can be found. Together you can all commiserate and perhaps try to strategize how to become less of a minority.
This is one of the "unexpected" results of social media. The early pioneers thought it would bring the world together. As usual, they were only seeing it through the lens of their own views. They assumed, as most people usually assume, their opinions and views and methods are right and thus just and should be elevated. Few people, at the dawn of social media, expected to see minority viewpoints, unwelcome viewpoints, rejected viewpoints, uncomfortable viewpoints, finding any sort of traction.
Now we have a much more mature social media infrastructure. With more developing every day, as legacy providers add capability and new providers join the space. And, it turns out, even though most of us tried to convince ourselves it wasn't the case, there are a lot of people online. More than just "your people." Some of them are "their people."
And those other people disagree. Sometimes a lot, sometimes often, sometimes a little, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in very minor ways, sometimes in very aggressively hostile ways. Sometimes they care a lot about the subject and are prepared to get determined and engaged in how they disagree and work to overcome it, and sometimes they don't care much at all and just move on.
It's a shock to society, having to be face-to-face in an online manner to so much disagreement. Because, in person, humans crave agreement. Most people usually want to shape their interactions to be agreed with. Groups tend to dislike fractiousness, arguments. People want it out-of-sight, out-of-mind, it bothers them so much.
But with more than eight billion people on the planet, with hundreds of millions of people (or more) in most countries, you're not going to find uniform agreement. People are individuals, and many have their own views. Unlike in pre-internet times, they have the platforms to either share those views or agree with others who already have. This allows factions to grow, rather than being shouted down in isolated infamy.
Humanity needs to address this. We are, of course and unfortunately, highly unlikely to manage to do so. We're just too hostile to "the other". And when it comes to agreement, those who disagree are usually that other who we decide to despise. It's too uncomfortable to contemplate how to reach out and discuss such subjects with our others. It doesn't matter what you think of them, they of you, or either of you of the other's views; people tend to very rapidly personalize and demonize.
Which just makes something difficult and complex into something that's also hostile and combative. Congratulations; we're all humans. Guess what? We better figure it out or we're going to keep fighting. People need to learn how to fucking compromise. It is possible.
The planet is big enough, even with eight billion of us on it. It's not like we have to cram all the disparate factions into a small island, living elbows to eyes and asses to assholes. Countries (and states in America) are sort of a way to compartmentalize out the factionalism of humanity, gives it breathing room. "Yeah, those (other country citizens) are (insert some grievance); good thing they live on the other side of the border. Anyway, what's for dinner?"
But, as usual, what's probably going to happen is we're all going to ignore it because we find it uncomfortable. Only the truly invested are prepared to stand up and have their forceful say. Most people shirk from such aggression (civilized or hostile aggression, either is shirked from).
So the can keeps kicking down the road, and the divides widen, the entrenched positions deepen, and suddenly a scattered few glance backward in surprise. Where the point of no return, the line where we could've pulled back from a more chaotic and unexpected realignment, is buried in the far mists of the horizon.
Then it all blows up into that chaos as the realignments start hashing out. That's what humans do; ignore problems until there's no choice but to pay attention since it just exploded all over our faces. Dousing us with goo.
One more of the unforeseen social costs of locking everyone down during covid. Yes the gov says we saved X number of lives by forcing people to stay home but I highly doubt even the most...
The government should create a community cohesion strategy as a matter of urgency, according to Mulhall.
“Multiculturalism takes work,” he said. A decline in third spaces away from home or work where people from different communities could mingle were “massively” important, he said.
“When individuals and different communities interact with each other, misinformation is harder to spread. When you play sport together, or go to the same youth clubs, boxing clubs, football clubs, or even just parks or libraries, when you hear lies about other communities, it’s more likely that they won’t believe them.”
One more of the unforeseen social costs of locking everyone down during covid. Yes the gov says we saved X number of lives by forcing people to stay home but I highly doubt even the most insightful gov decision makers were thinking "but what will the cost be to our social cohesiveness? How many people will suffer massive mental health issues exacerbated by being cut off from their friends and families? What will be the social cost of a huge increase in drug use and the subsequent increase in crime? How will bad actors use a lack of interaction to foster divisiveness with certain minority groups?"
At the end of the day, "saving lives" turns out to be a lot more complicated then just keeping citizens from catching a virus. I wonder if the next pandemic will be treated significantly differently because of the long term repercussions we're seeing evolve now.
Counterpoint. The 2002-2004 SARS outbreak brought Hong Kongers closer to one another. We cheered for our medical staff and we collectively mourned their losses. We held on tighter and helped each...
Counterpoint. The 2002-2004 SARS outbreak brought Hong Kongers closer to one another. We cheered for our medical staff and we collectively mourned their losses. We held on tighter and helped each other remotely / behind masks.
Shadowy processes have been working at social cohesion for decades. The lockdown was something that folks used to make money from manufacturing outrage. Remember the earliest days of the pandemic when folks had rainbows/hope signs on their doors, and put teddies at windows so that when we go for our solitary walks we can still greet our neighbours in solidarity? Remember brewing companies shutting down beer making to hand out free alcohol? Heck, we wouldn't even have had toilet paper runs if it weren't for social media.
It wasn't the lock down itself. There were additional layers of manipulating public emotions dividing us against trust in medical science and faith in our governments. The US had a hand in it too, smearing Chinese vaccine in Ph. And obviously the other states were running similar campaigns on our home turfs via social media
Was it conspiratorial dark forces? Or do some people just let their most base emotions and drives run wild when there is a crisis at hand? Im asking honestly because I dont see where the advantage...
Was it conspiratorial dark forces? Or do some people just let their most base emotions and drives run wild when there is a crisis at hand? Im asking honestly because I dont see where the advantage comes for anyone who thought 'lets take advantage and sow as much discord as possible'? I mean, in Canada, when Canadians started to push back against our gov, our own national news agency theorized that it was all fostered by "Russia" and "dark forces" which proved to be false. It was just ordinary Canadians who were fed up with being locked up and micro managed. So in that case, no Russian influence needed and if anything, it was the Canadian gov and the CBC that was sowing discord by casting aspirations on the protesters as a 'small fringe minority' who were largely 'sexist and bigots'
I know you're not completely wrong: you turn off the lights and cockroaches come out. But it's also true that enemy states do in fact dump boxes of roach eggs in our house. In Civilizations video...
I know you're not completely wrong: you turn off the lights and cockroaches come out. But it's also true that enemy states do in fact dump boxes of roach eggs in our house.
I dont see where the advantage comes for anyone who thought 'lets take advantage and sow as much discord as possible'?
In Civilizations video game one can send spies to a foreign city and "foment unhappiness". It's a tactic as old as time, even got its own chapter in Sun Tsu's Art of War. Some states operate on a zero sum mentality: when my opponents are weakened, I am strengthened. Another advantage: if you can convince a lot of Canadians that China is awesome, we'd be more likely to support trade deals more favorable to them and oppose legislation to look deeper into spying/drugs/interference. Another advantage: if you can convince Canadians they can't trust their own government and their own media, they can more easily be manipulated by foreign government narratives and media.
Chapter 2 - The threat of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes and institutions - Tactics: Covertly influencing the opinions and positions of voters, ethnocultural communities and parliamentarians [...] Use of cyber tools to attain specific objectives
Exploiting traditional and social media
During the period under review, the
intelligence community observed states
manipulating traditional media to
disseminate propaganda in what
otherwise appeared to be independent
news publications. Foreign states also
spread disinformation to promote their
agendas and consequently challenge
Canadian interests, which posed the
greatest cyber threat activity to voters
during the time under review. These
tactics attempt to influence public
discourse and policymakers’ choices,
compromise the reputations of politicians,
delegitimize democracy or exacerbate
existing frictions in society.
According to the intelligence
community, the PRC was the most
capable actor in this context, interfering
with Canadian media content via direct
engagement with Canadian media
executives and journalists. [*** Six sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged
information. The sentences described examples of the PRC paying to publish media articles without attribution, sponsoring media travel to the PRC, pressuring journalists to withdraw articles and creating false accounts on social media to spread disinformation. ***]
Page 19 box
(Summary) The CCP is assessed to have spent over USD $2.6 billion on united front work in 2019 – more than it spent on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Twenty-three percent of the budget
(approximately $600 million) was allocated to influencing foreigners and overseas Chinese, in particular.
(Full box text)
The United Front Work Department (UFWD), a department of the Central Committee of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the organization primarily responsible for strengthening the PRC’s influence and interests abroad.82 The individual responsible for the United Front Work Department is the fourth highest ranking member of the PRC’s seven-person Politburo. 83
United front work refers to the PRC government’s strategy of influencing, through both overt and covert methods, overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions and positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred global narrative. While the PRC employs a large network to carry out united front work, the UFWD is responsible for its conception, implementation and oversight. The CCP is assessed to have spent over USD $2.6 billion on united front work in 2019 – more than it spent on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Twenty-three percent of the budget
(approximately $600 million) was allocated to influencing foreigners and overseas Chinese, in particular. 84
United front work has been successful in co-opting or subverting political opponents of the
CCP and incentivizing public displays of support for the Party. The UFWD has produced
propaganda, suppressed critical narratives, and engaged academics, media, businesses and politicians to influence them to adopt pro-China positions or avoid adopting what the PRC considers anti-China positions. 85
The United Front Work Department works with the PRC’s intelligence agencies. 86 [*** One
sentence was deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. The sentence described
UFWD methods.***] 87
There is no Western equivalent to united front work. 88 [*** Two sentences were deleted to
remove injurious or privileged information. The sentences described CSIS analysis that
indicated the PRC is aware of the increased scrutiny of united front work in Western countries d the importance of acting lawfully. The pretence of acting lawfully explains the CCP’s opposition to legislation that would make united front work more difficult. **
And we know for sure China is influencing our elections. Page 31 Case Study #4: PRC interference in the Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North
(Summary) According to CSIS, the PRC *** had a significant impact in getting Han Dong nominated [...] The nomination vote occurred on September 12, 2019. Many of Mr. Dong’s supporters arrived in buses *** supported by the PRC: between 175 and 200 international Chinese students arrived in several buses. The Consulate reportedly told the students that they must vote for Mr. Dong if they want to maintain their student visas.
(Rest of text)
The Consulate knowingly broke the Liberal Party of Canada’s rule that voters in a nomination
process must live in the riding. [*** Three sentences were deleted to remove injurious or
privileged information. The sentences noted that the students reportedly: lived outside of the
riding; were provided with fraudulent residency paper work; and sought to physically
intimidate voters and distribute pro-Dong materials, contrary to Party rules. ] 213 214
CSIS assessed that the PRC’s foreign interference activities played a *** significant role in
Mr. Dong’s nomination, which he won *** by a small margin. 215 By successfully interfering in
the nomination process of what can be considered a safe riding for the Liberal Party of
Canada, the PRC was well-positioned to ensure its preferred candidate was elected to
Parliament. 216 [ Two sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information.
The sentences described a CSIS assessment on the degree to which an individual was
implicated in these activities. ] 217
On September 28, 2019, CSIS briefed the Liberal Party of Canada’s Secret-cleared
representatives on its assessment, who in turn briefed the PM alone the following day. 218 The
Liberal Party of Canada allowed Mr. Dong to run in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
[ Two sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. T he sentences
described the Prime Minister’s discussion with the Committee about Mr. Dong and the steps
he took in response to intelligence reporting. ***]
The issue is you have to weigh this against imploding health systems, huge numbers of deaths from COVID as well as other hospital deaths (COVID causes hospitals to reach peak capacity which makes...
One more of the unforeseen social costs of locking everyone down during covid. Yes the gov says we saved X number of lives by forcing people to stay home but I highly doubt even the most insightful gov decision makers were thinking
The issue is you have to weigh this against imploding health systems, huge numbers of deaths from COVID as well as other hospital deaths (COVID causes hospitals to reach peak capacity which makes it harder to treat all the other injuries and illnesses people suffer) and the assorted economic harms this causes (for example a smaller labour pool because of people suffering chronic post-viral fatigue/organ damage, more businesses failing because of worse outbreaks later down the line).
Being alive is a clear prerequisite for everything else, and the above issues (particularly worse economic performance) cause mental health problems and struggles.
These measures were never about saving as many lives as possible. The measures were there to avoid flooding the healthcare system. That system was at the point of breaking in many countries,...
Yes the gov says we saved X number of lives by forcing people to stay home but I highly doubt even the most insightful gov decision makers were thinking…
These measures were never about saving as many lives as possible. The measures were there to avoid flooding the healthcare system. That system was at the point of breaking in many countries, slowing the number of infections down was the only way to avoid a collapse.
A collapse of the healthcare system would have been much more catastrophic than any metal health impact from isolation. I think we should all be really glad the outcome hasn’t been much worse.
X and Meta. We have study after study after study that these platforms are not only intentionally espousing misinformation and generating outrage/fracture in society, but also that they're profiting from it. Close them down or fine them for social costs until the go out of business. We have laws against arson and wrecking infrastructure and selling harmful materials to citizens.
If we don't yet have laws for people who burn down society digitally, rending the social fabric and actively selling mind poisons, we can start there.
I don't understand how we have no laws against digital forms of taking foreign interest money to influence local elections and profiting off of rage baiting citizens. "It's not easy", sure, I'll bet it's insanely difficult. But should a government's legitimacy and own survival be worth some effort to maintain?
Even though we have lived digital lifes for decades, I still think we haven't fully accepted that it actually exists and have real consequences. The tech industry is massively under regulated compared to most things in the physical world. There still seems to be a general notion that it is doesn't have real consequences and we haven't fully developed proper mental model for the digital world yet as a society. If someone breaks into your house or a victim of crime in general, most people would show sympathy and agree that it should be a police matter. However often with digital crimes such as identity theft, scams or online abuse are often disregarded as not that big of a deal, the victim's own fault or that they can just go offline. It is similar to the difference we still have with physical illness and mental illness. Cancer is real and tangible, whereas mental illness is still seen as "just in your head". Both things have improved a lot in recent years but I still think we have a long way to go. The tech industry still get a free pass in many areas. Like we have strict regulations on gambling, but games can employ the same addictive manipulative strategies with no one stopping them.
It’s all because we, as a society, have decided they should not be held accountable for user submitted content. Which I have always loudly proclaimed is the most stupid and irresponsible idea we could possibly have. If we can sue a newspaper publisher for printing libel, why do we exempt megacorporations who operate on a scale that newspapers could barely even dream of?
How would such liability be implemented? Would it require pre-screen between submission and publication, a best-effort effort to clear the report queue?
For that matter, will there be a distinction between server hosting (whether VPS or physical servers) and being a social platform?
Speaking with all of the privilege of someone who doesn’t run one of these services, I don’t actually care much about the specifics. If things get pre-screened that would probably be better.
I would be OK if private messages were exempted from the requirements, because that is a point where it is clearer that they are acting more of a delivery medium instead of a publication. The important distinction is the availability of the content to be viewed by the public.
I do care about the specifics because they're the subtle details that differentiate between effective, ineffective, and breaking the fundamental business model for hosting user-generated content.
Even "availability of the content to be viewed by the public" needs a precise definition. How does that apply to a person's Facebook status if the privacy setting is "friends of friends"? What about private subreddits?
Along those lines I think publishing something for your mutuals to see is different than posting something to your followers. The former, I think, should be exempt from screening.
Preach!
We need legal accountability. Sadly that will need to depend on politicians to push and pass, and it's easy to somehow convince them nah, we're job creators and contribute to the economy etc.
It's not nefarious or sinister, not the basic functions that make this happen. It's just ordinary human nature. Not at all complicated or intricate.
The fact that various factions, and indeed various nation-state factions, are weaponizing social media is really a separate discussion. Just as nations guard borders, nations now need to guard their online borders. It's one thing to say "we have a free society with free speech." It's another thing to allow people to manipulate free speech to nefarious real-world ends, and yet another thing entirely for a hostile nation to be allowed to do it. But that's really a separate discussion from "social media."
The basics are simple. People crave agreement. They want agreement. And they absolutely do not want to be disagreed with, certainly not in any way that comes with a judgement or a hostile tone to the disagreement.
If a group of people want lunch, and are trying to figure out what to get, the suggestions that get agreement very rapidly bubble to the top. The outliers that few (or only one) wanted, sink. Sometimes they even draw some form of hostility (e.g., "why would you want (type of food), no way weirdo") as the group disagrees.
There are finite limits to how many people can be packed into an in person group. Even if you fill a stadium, those people have a hard time communicating with each other. A core group (with control of the PA system) can lead the "discussion", seeing which suggestions and proposals get (dis)agreement, but it's still basically the same thing. The group looking for something they (mostly) all agree on, which they'll cheer and applaud, and that'll fix their collective choice.
Online though, there's a much more infinite lack of limits in "the group". You might be a one-in-a-thousand "weirdo", but there are 330+million people in America, and 8.125+ billion people in the world. So even one-in-a-thousand oddball views and opinions can find agreement. Can find their people.
That agreement amplifies. Folks have coined the term "echo chamber" and usually utilize it to refer to the amplification of opinions they disagree with. They don't think of views and decisions they do agree with as "echo chamber", even if they are; but if an unwanted opinion is gaining traction in other groups, they'll trot out that term (among others) to try and disparage it.
Which is what people use disparagement and insults for. Why they do them. They want to crush ideas they disagree with. They want those ideas stomped out, violently. That's why they ridicule and fling hostility.
But online, you can find your people. Unlike those finite in-person group limits, where you could be a minority of one and thus easily shouted down and dismissed, online the others who share your view can be found. Together you can all commiserate and perhaps try to strategize how to become less of a minority.
This is one of the "unexpected" results of social media. The early pioneers thought it would bring the world together. As usual, they were only seeing it through the lens of their own views. They assumed, as most people usually assume, their opinions and views and methods are right and thus just and should be elevated. Few people, at the dawn of social media, expected to see minority viewpoints, unwelcome viewpoints, rejected viewpoints, uncomfortable viewpoints, finding any sort of traction.
Now we have a much more mature social media infrastructure. With more developing every day, as legacy providers add capability and new providers join the space. And, it turns out, even though most of us tried to convince ourselves it wasn't the case, there are a lot of people online. More than just "your people." Some of them are "their people."
And those other people disagree. Sometimes a lot, sometimes often, sometimes a little, sometimes in big ways, sometimes in very minor ways, sometimes in very aggressively hostile ways. Sometimes they care a lot about the subject and are prepared to get determined and engaged in how they disagree and work to overcome it, and sometimes they don't care much at all and just move on.
It's a shock to society, having to be face-to-face in an online manner to so much disagreement. Because, in person, humans crave agreement. Most people usually want to shape their interactions to be agreed with. Groups tend to dislike fractiousness, arguments. People want it out-of-sight, out-of-mind, it bothers them so much.
But with more than eight billion people on the planet, with hundreds of millions of people (or more) in most countries, you're not going to find uniform agreement. People are individuals, and many have their own views. Unlike in pre-internet times, they have the platforms to either share those views or agree with others who already have. This allows factions to grow, rather than being shouted down in isolated infamy.
Humanity needs to address this. We are, of course and unfortunately, highly unlikely to manage to do so. We're just too hostile to "the other". And when it comes to agreement, those who disagree are usually that other who we decide to despise. It's too uncomfortable to contemplate how to reach out and discuss such subjects with our others. It doesn't matter what you think of them, they of you, or either of you of the other's views; people tend to very rapidly personalize and demonize.
Which just makes something difficult and complex into something that's also hostile and combative. Congratulations; we're all humans. Guess what? We better figure it out or we're going to keep fighting. People need to learn how to fucking compromise. It is possible.
The planet is big enough, even with eight billion of us on it. It's not like we have to cram all the disparate factions into a small island, living elbows to eyes and asses to assholes. Countries (and states in America) are sort of a way to compartmentalize out the factionalism of humanity, gives it breathing room. "Yeah, those (other country citizens) are (insert some grievance); good thing they live on the other side of the border. Anyway, what's for dinner?"
But, as usual, what's probably going to happen is we're all going to ignore it because we find it uncomfortable. Only the truly invested are prepared to stand up and have their forceful say. Most people shirk from such aggression (civilized or hostile aggression, either is shirked from).
So the can keeps kicking down the road, and the divides widen, the entrenched positions deepen, and suddenly a scattered few glance backward in surprise. Where the point of no return, the line where we could've pulled back from a more chaotic and unexpected realignment, is buried in the far mists of the horizon.
Then it all blows up into that chaos as the realignments start hashing out. That's what humans do; ignore problems until there's no choice but to pay attention since it just exploded all over our faces. Dousing us with goo.
One more of the unforeseen social costs of locking everyone down during covid. Yes the gov says we saved X number of lives by forcing people to stay home but I highly doubt even the most insightful gov decision makers were thinking "but what will the cost be to our social cohesiveness? How many people will suffer massive mental health issues exacerbated by being cut off from their friends and families? What will be the social cost of a huge increase in drug use and the subsequent increase in crime? How will bad actors use a lack of interaction to foster divisiveness with certain minority groups?"
At the end of the day, "saving lives" turns out to be a lot more complicated then just keeping citizens from catching a virus. I wonder if the next pandemic will be treated significantly differently because of the long term repercussions we're seeing evolve now.
Counterpoint. The 2002-2004 SARS outbreak brought Hong Kongers closer to one another. We cheered for our medical staff and we collectively mourned their losses. We held on tighter and helped each other remotely / behind masks.
Shadowy processes have been working at social cohesion for decades. The lockdown was something that folks used to make money from manufacturing outrage. Remember the earliest days of the pandemic when folks had rainbows/hope signs on their doors, and put teddies at windows so that when we go for our solitary walks we can still greet our neighbours in solidarity? Remember brewing companies shutting down beer making to hand out free alcohol? Heck, we wouldn't even have had toilet paper runs if it weren't for social media.
It wasn't the lock down itself. There were additional layers of manipulating public emotions dividing us against trust in medical science and faith in our governments. The US had a hand in it too, smearing Chinese vaccine in Ph. And obviously the other states were running similar campaigns on our home turfs via social media
Was it conspiratorial dark forces? Or do some people just let their most base emotions and drives run wild when there is a crisis at hand? Im asking honestly because I dont see where the advantage comes for anyone who thought 'lets take advantage and sow as much discord as possible'? I mean, in Canada, when Canadians started to push back against our gov, our own national news agency theorized that it was all fostered by "Russia" and "dark forces" which proved to be false. It was just ordinary Canadians who were fed up with being locked up and micro managed. So in that case, no Russian influence needed and if anything, it was the Canadian gov and the CBC that was sowing discord by casting aspirations on the protesters as a 'small fringe minority' who were largely 'sexist and bigots'
I know you're not completely wrong: you turn off the lights and cockroaches come out. But it's also true that enemy states do in fact dump boxes of roach eggs in our house.
In Civilizations video game one can send spies to a foreign city and "foment unhappiness". It's a tactic as old as time, even got its own chapter in Sun Tsu's Art of War. Some states operate on a zero sum mentality: when my opponents are weakened, I am strengthened. Another advantage: if you can convince a lot of Canadians that China is awesome, we'd be more likely to support trade deals more favorable to them and oppose legislation to look deeper into spying/drugs/interference. Another advantage: if you can convince Canadians they can't trust their own government and their own media, they can more easily be manipulated by foreign government narratives and media.
The US obviously finds it worthwhile. The Pentagon ran secret anti-vax campaign to undermine China during pandemic
So do these guys. Russia, China sow disinformation to undermine trust in Western vaccines: EU
But don't take my word for it. If you can't trust Trudeau or other parties, if you don't trust CBC, maybe our CSIS and NSIC?
From National Security and Intelligence Committee of
Parliamentarians - Special Report on Foreign Interference in Canada’s Democratic Processes and Institutions (2024)
Chapter 2 - The threat of foreign interference in Canada’s democratic processes and institutions - Tactics: Covertly influencing the opinions and positions of voters, ethnocultural communities and parliamentarians [...] Use of cyber tools to attain specific objectives
Exploiting traditional and social media
During the period under review, the
intelligence community observed states
manipulating traditional media to
disseminate propaganda in what
otherwise appeared to be independent
news publications. Foreign states also
spread disinformation to promote their
agendas and consequently challenge
Canadian interests, which posed the
greatest cyber threat activity to voters
during the time under review. These
tactics attempt to influence public
discourse and policymakers’ choices,
compromise the reputations of politicians,
delegitimize democracy or exacerbate
existing frictions in society.
According to the intelligence
community, the PRC was the most
capable actor in this context, interfering
with Canadian media content via direct
engagement with Canadian media
executives and journalists. [*** Six sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged
information. The sentences described examples of the PRC paying to publish media articles without attribution, sponsoring media travel to the PRC, pressuring journalists to withdraw articles and creating false accounts on social media to spread disinformation. ***]
Page 19 box
(Summary) The CCP is assessed to have spent over USD $2.6 billion on united front work in 2019 – more than it spent on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Twenty-three percent of the budget (approximately $600 million) was allocated to influencing foreigners and overseas Chinese, in particular.
(Full box text)
The United Front Work Department (UFWD), a department of the Central Committee of the
Chinese Communist Party (CCP), is the organization primarily responsible for strengthening the PRC’s influence and interests abroad.82 The individual responsible for the United Front Work Department is the fourth highest ranking member of the PRC’s seven-person Politburo. 83
United front work refers to the PRC government’s strategy of influencing, through both overt and covert methods, overseas Chinese communities, foreign governments, and other actors to take actions and positions supportive of Beijing’s preferred global narrative. While the PRC employs a large network to carry out united front work, the UFWD is responsible for its conception, implementation and oversight. The CCP is assessed to have spent over USD $2.6 billion on united front work in 2019 – more than it spent on the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Twenty-three percent of the budget
(approximately $600 million) was allocated to influencing foreigners and overseas Chinese, in particular. 84
United front work has been successful in co-opting or subverting political opponents of the
CCP and incentivizing public displays of support for the Party. The UFWD has produced
propaganda, suppressed critical narratives, and engaged academics, media, businesses and politicians to influence them to adopt pro-China positions or avoid adopting what the PRC considers anti-China positions. 85
The United Front Work Department works with the PRC’s intelligence agencies. 86 [*** One
sentence was deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. The sentence described
UFWD methods.***] 87
There is no Western equivalent to united front work. 88 [*** Two sentences were deleted to
remove injurious or privileged information. The sentences described CSIS analysis that
indicated the PRC is aware of the increased scrutiny of united front work in Western countries d the importance of acting lawfully. The pretence of acting lawfully explains the CCP’s opposition to legislation that would make united front work more difficult. **
And we know for sure China is influencing our elections. Page 31 Case Study #4: PRC interference in the Liberal nomination contest in Don Valley North
(Summary) According to CSIS, the PRC *** had a significant impact in getting Han Dong nominated [...] The nomination vote occurred on September 12, 2019. Many of Mr. Dong’s supporters arrived in buses *** supported by the PRC: between 175 and 200 international Chinese students arrived in several buses. The Consulate reportedly told the students that they must vote for Mr. Dong if they want to maintain their student visas.
(Rest of text)
The Consulate knowingly broke the Liberal Party of Canada’s rule that voters in a nomination
process must live in the riding. [*** Three sentences were deleted to remove injurious or
privileged information. The sentences noted that the students reportedly: lived outside of the
riding; were provided with fraudulent residency paper work; and sought to physically
intimidate voters and distribute pro-Dong materials, contrary to Party rules. ] 213 214
CSIS assessed that the PRC’s foreign interference activities played a *** significant role in
Mr. Dong’s nomination, which he won *** by a small margin. 215 By successfully interfering in
the nomination process of what can be considered a safe riding for the Liberal Party of
Canada, the PRC was well-positioned to ensure its preferred candidate was elected to
Parliament. 216 [ Two sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information.
The sentences described a CSIS assessment on the degree to which an individual was
implicated in these activities. ] 217
On September 28, 2019, CSIS briefed the Liberal Party of Canada’s Secret-cleared
representatives on its assessment, who in turn briefed the PM alone the following day. 218 The
Liberal Party of Canada allowed Mr. Dong to run in both the 2019 and 2021 federal elections.
[ Two sentences were deleted to remove injurious or privileged information. T he sentences
described the Prime Minister’s discussion with the Committee about Mr. Dong and the steps
he took in response to intelligence reporting. ***]
The issue is you have to weigh this against imploding health systems, huge numbers of deaths from COVID as well as other hospital deaths (COVID causes hospitals to reach peak capacity which makes it harder to treat all the other injuries and illnesses people suffer) and the assorted economic harms this causes (for example a smaller labour pool because of people suffering chronic post-viral fatigue/organ damage, more businesses failing because of worse outbreaks later down the line).
Being alive is a clear prerequisite for everything else, and the above issues (particularly worse economic performance) cause mental health problems and struggles.
These measures were never about saving as many lives as possible. The measures were there to avoid flooding the healthcare system. That system was at the point of breaking in many countries, slowing the number of infections down was the only way to avoid a collapse.
A collapse of the healthcare system would have been much more catastrophic than any metal health impact from isolation. I think we should all be really glad the outcome hasn’t been much worse.